No, the stakes are: it was possible for one side to strike a devastating blow with no retaliation whatsoever. That's not what you want in a nuclear war. Without MAD everything breaks down. You do not want that.
It doesn't take that much "skill" to make a fire with a bowdrill, honestly. My brother was into this kind of thing. It turns out that the choice of wood, string, and a decent bow make a _huge_ difference. E.g. I saw him get a glowing ember from his drill setup in less than a minute, and in less than 90 seconds had a handful of flames. Impressed by how easy it looked, I traipsed into the woods, found some sticks of various sizes, with no thought whatsoever to their suitability, made a rough bow, carved out a notch, got a rock and started going at it. Half a day later, I could barely get smoke. I didn't know why. He let me use his setup, and within two minutes I too had an ember.
You need a wood that grows straight, has little resin, and is somewhat dry for the drill, and a flexible but stiff wood for the bow. A soft maple is excellent. It needs to be dead and dry, not green (obviously). You want a good solid leather string that will grip the drill nicely. You want a good amount of tension in the bow, but not too much. The drill should be between 2 and 3 cm wide, around 15 to 20 cm long. For the base you want a somewhat harder wood with a little more resin. Oak is good. Gather good kindling to catch, often by peeling bark into super thin strips and making a little nest of them. The glowing ember will come from the dust of the drill being worn down and getting hot. For the top you want a rock not much bigger than the palm of your hand, so that you can get a good grip on it and put some weight to keep the whole system stable. You want to get a nice point on the drill on the rock side and if possible scratch a bit of a hole into the rock so the point from the drill fits. If you can find some lubrication of some sort for the top that helps.
After the notch in the base gets worn in and the friction part of your drill gets worn into the appropriate shape, it is not actually that hard to make a fire in less than a few minutes. I've done it.
Your post is balanced on a tower of incorrect unstated assumptions.
He basically says that being able to move products and goods without taxation caused this scenario where labour can be sent over-seas to a country with lower wages. This generally means that either that country has all the jobs or other countries have to lower their wages to stay competitive.
There is no mythical place with the cheapest labor prices and an infinite supply of labor. When an employer enters a new country and wants to hire people, they have to increase the wage they offer those workers in the market in order to compete. Those workers actually benefit by doing this.
This also reflects the quality of products and services, since you are paying substandard wages
Sub-what-standard wages? Where does the "standard" wage come from?
and basically taking people who need money to survive
Everyone needs money to survive.
and not people who work because they enjoy it.
Rare breed, they.
On the flip side, the middle class in the more prosperous nations are left without the jobs they'd need to get by,
Oh, are they? They couldn't possibly think up new, better, more enjoyable jobs could they?
or they'd take sub-standard (for their country) wages and scrape along the bottom.
I am missing the assumption that you are apparently stuck on that there is some kind feeding trough of jobs that people, like cattle, line up for...?
Apparently you are also missing the very obvious fact that consumers who buy goods actually benefit because the goods are cheaper.
It's like a broken record with you protectionists. Chinese jobs are bad! US jobs are good! If local jobs are better than foreign jobs, it seems somewhat arbitrary that you choose nations as your granularity. Why not states? Are Arkansas jobs worse than Texas jobs? What about California jobs versus Idaho jobs? Those labor markets have radically different wage profiles--is "exploiting" cheap labor in Detroit bad for the expensive labor market in California? Why stop there? Why not get upset that *any* jobs exist outside your town? Or your family?
Hey, don't buy that hammer, my brother makes hammers!?
Except that they don't. At least, no more than anybody else. Possibly less, actually. In the US, Christians are about 80% of the population, but over 90% of convicted criminals.
Could it be that Christians are very active in prisons, and that convicts (who have little to lose) are more than happy to "turn to God" to make early parole?
Hate to break it to you, but high and low tide occur twice (each) per day, and tide schedules shift by about 50 minutes each day. They can also vary due to other factors such as wind conditions, shape of the harbor, ocean conditions, phase of the moon (interaction between the Sun's tidal effects and the moon's), etc. If this was happening every day at the same time, I find it highly unlikely that tides were the root cause.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but ads do not influence Google search results. Search results are computed and ranked completely independent of ads. It doesn't matter how much you pay Google for your ad campaign, it won't influence what is shown in the search results. Search engine optimization on the other hand....
Wow, your comment is absolutely laden with objective reasoning, and does not demonize those you disagree with as bad people, at all. Seriously, you believe that all people who hold a libertarian viewpoint want to screw everyone else and get a license to fuck everyone else over? This is the starting point of your reasoning?
I'm coming around to your viewpoint. Oh wait, nope.
People rarely think their positions through in my experience. Or they just gloss over all the bad parts because what happens won't affect them in the least.
Note to telecoms: You were, are, and always will be, dumb pipes. Stop complaining, it used to be that you guys made respectable money selling dumb pipes to people who needed them. Of course, that was back before you became a bunch of bloated gasbags intent on squeezing every last packet out of the internet.
Billions on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? How bout the motherf***ing TRILLIONS given to, loaned to, and invested into the dumbest car manufacturers, financial firms, banks, and insurance companies in history over the last two years?
X-rays are higher frequency than visible light and yes, are ionizing. X-rays can and do damage DNA directly, which can lead to cancer.
Microwaves transfer heat to water molecules (and some other molecules, depending on the frequency) very well. Thus they make for great ovens. This "Japanese Death Ray" you speak of would basically cook you to death.
A typical microwave oven is on the order of 500-1500 watts. The typical transmit power of your average cell phone is about 0.5 to 1 watt, less with better cell coverage. That's a factor of 1000 difference. And if that's radiated in all directions from the transmitter, probably less than 1/3 of that energy is radiated toward a user's head. I can't speculate on the absorption rate of that energy within a human head, but I doubt there is a single study which could actually measure the heating effect of a typical cell phone's signal on living tissue.
Why would they cause cancer (any more than wifi/general EM radiation)? It's not ionising radiation as far as i know and short bursts of exposure to any sort of radiation is fine - people live in Chernobyl without any side effects and the background radiation level there is substantially above the norm.
Do you understand the difference between EM radiation and particle radiation? Unfortunately the difference between the "radiation" fallout from nuclear weapons and disasters and the "radiation" from cell phones is lost on the media. Particle radiation is high-energy particles of matter, e.g. alpha particles, that smash into atoms and molecules and cause damage at the molecular level to your DNA.
EM radiation is pure emitted energy. Light is EM radiation. Heat is EM radiation. Microwaves and radio signals are EM radiation. The wavelength of cell phone radiation is so long (between 10 and 30 cm) that it is literally impossible for it to interact with single molecules and cause damage to your DNA. However, at that wavelength it can still transfer heat, like a microwave oven.
The notion that cell phone radiation causes cancer directly, as in through genetic damage, is ludicrous. It would only be able to cause cancer by causing localized heating of parts of your brain which may set into effect a cascade of effects that may manifest as cancer. However, I think this is unlikely.
As for sperm counts, I think carrying a cell phone in your pocket is about bad for your sperm count as would be carrying around one of those chemical warm packets or wearing tighter underwear--the extra heat is the only culprit.
Given that Pluto orbits at close to 1/1000th of a lightyear from the Sun (up to 7 billion km versus about 10 trillion km in a lightyear), I think if there were a companion star at 1/2 a lightyear, we'd probably have been able to infer its presence by its gravitational disturbance on the outermost planets' orbits. Also, most binary systems have very tight orbits between the companion stars--a binary system with 1/2 a lightyear distance might be even more unusual than a unary star system.
I suppose it is possible the Sun has a companion out there, but seems very unlikely to me.
I'm unclear on what part of the government would be "supporting" a failing company by allowing a private acquisition to occur. It's not like Oracle is asking the government to pump money into Sun. That would be supporting.
On the other hand, it's seems relatively obvious that by preventing this the EC is doing everything possible to make Sun and Oracle both less competitive. Whose being anti-competitive again? Do you think that maybe IBM, SAP, HP, and others are actually benefitting from the gridlock? They've been soaking up Sun customers for months now.
That's a moronic inference. The balance of our nuclear energy comes from low-enriched uranium specifically made for reactors, not from detonable bombs.
Right, the pictures of the big bad Israelis bulldozing Palestinian homes make for such great propaganda that the inconvenient fact that the Palestinian authority actually bulldozes _far more_ Palestinian homes than Israel ever has (or that Israel actually bulldozes Israeli citizens homes built on disputed land as well) gets completely overlooked.
Yet when Israel cedes land unilaterally back to the Palestinians, or releases hundreds of terrorist prisoners in exchange for peace, it gets not peace, but demands for its destruction.
You can make rationalizations all day long but when it comes down to it, I am certain that if the Palestinians had 50-100 nuclear devices they would not show the same restraint. Israel would be ash in seconds.
Israel probably has 50-100 nuclear warheads, likely for more than three decades. Yet in the numerous times that it was attacked by its neighbors, had its borders violated by suicide bombers and terrorist kidnappers, and having suffered tens of thousands of rockets launched from the West Bank and Gaza over the years, it has not used one.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the stakes are: it was possible for one side to strike a devastating blow with no retaliation whatsoever. That's not what you want in a nuclear war. Without MAD everything breaks down. You do not want that.
It doesn't take that much "skill" to make a fire with a bowdrill, honestly. My brother was into this kind of thing. It turns out that the choice of wood, string, and a decent bow make a _huge_ difference. E.g. I saw him get a glowing ember from his drill setup in less than a minute, and in less than 90 seconds had a handful of flames. Impressed by how easy it looked, I traipsed into the woods, found some sticks of various sizes, with no thought whatsoever to their suitability, made a rough bow, carved out a notch, got a rock and started going at it. Half a day later, I could barely get smoke. I didn't know why. He let me use his setup, and within two minutes I too had an ember.
You need a wood that grows straight, has little resin, and is somewhat dry for the drill, and a flexible but stiff wood for the bow. A soft maple is excellent. It needs to be dead and dry, not green (obviously). You want a good solid leather string that will grip the drill nicely. You want a good amount of tension in the bow, but not too much. The drill should be between 2 and 3 cm wide, around 15 to 20 cm long. For the base you want a somewhat harder wood with a little more resin. Oak is good. Gather good kindling to catch, often by peeling bark into super thin strips and making a little nest of them. The glowing ember will come from the dust of the drill being worn down and getting hot. For the top you want a rock not much bigger than the palm of your hand, so that you can get a good grip on it and put some weight to keep the whole system stable. You want to get a nice point on the drill on the rock side and if possible scratch a bit of a hole into the rock so the point from the drill fits. If you can find some lubrication of some sort for the top that helps.
After the notch in the base gets worn in and the friction part of your drill gets worn into the appropriate shape, it is not actually that hard to make a fire in less than a few minutes. I've done it.
Fossil fuels store ancient solar energy...perhaps the poster meant "with only energy recently collected from the Sun"?
What if a solar plant produced gasoline as its output...would that count as "solar powered"?
Yes, I can see a new motto for the Feds:
"We're here because you're all too stupid to do the right thing."
"Oh, and we get to decide what the right thing is. That'll be $5. *gun in face*"
???
Your post is balanced on a tower of incorrect unstated assumptions.
There is no mythical place with the cheapest labor prices and an infinite supply of labor. When an employer enters a new country and wants to hire people, they have to increase the wage they offer those workers in the market in order to compete. Those workers actually benefit by doing this.
Sub-what-standard wages? Where does the "standard" wage come from?
Everyone needs money to survive.
Rare breed, they.
Oh, are they? They couldn't possibly think up new, better, more enjoyable jobs could they?
I am missing the assumption that you are apparently stuck on that there is some kind feeding trough of jobs that people, like cattle, line up for...?
Apparently you are also missing the very obvious fact that consumers who buy goods actually benefit because the goods are cheaper.
It's like a broken record with you protectionists. Chinese jobs are bad! US jobs are good! If local jobs are better than foreign jobs, it seems somewhat arbitrary that you choose nations as your granularity. Why not states? Are Arkansas jobs worse than Texas jobs? What about California jobs versus Idaho jobs? Those labor markets have radically different wage profiles--is "exploiting" cheap labor in Detroit bad for the expensive labor market in California? Why stop there? Why not get upset that *any* jobs exist outside your town? Or your family?
Hey, don't buy that hammer, my brother makes hammers!?
Could it be that Christians are very active in prisons, and that convicts (who have little to lose) are more than happy to "turn to God" to make early parole?
Hate to break it to you, but high and low tide occur twice (each) per day, and tide schedules shift by about 50 minutes each day. They can also vary due to other factors such as wind conditions, shape of the harbor, ocean conditions, phase of the moon (interaction between the Sun's tidal effects and the moon's), etc. If this was happening every day at the same time, I find it highly unlikely that tides were the root cause.
Use a helicopter....what could possibly go wrong?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but ads do not influence Google search results. Search results are computed and ranked completely independent of ads. It doesn't matter how much you pay Google for your ad campaign, it won't influence what is shown in the search results. Search engine optimization on the other hand....
Wow, your comment is absolutely laden with objective reasoning, and does not demonize those you disagree with as bad people, at all. Seriously, you believe that all people who hold a libertarian viewpoint want to screw everyone else and get a license to fuck everyone else over? This is the starting point of your reasoning?
I'm coming around to your viewpoint. Oh wait, nope.
There, fixed that for you.
Note to telecoms: You were, are, and always will be, dumb pipes. Stop complaining, it used to be that you guys made respectable money selling dumb pipes to people who needed them. Of course, that was back before you became a bunch of bloated gasbags intent on squeezing every last packet out of the internet.
Billions on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? How bout the motherf***ing TRILLIONS given to, loaned to, and invested into the dumbest car manufacturers, financial firms, banks, and insurance companies in history over the last two years?
Spot on. If any other industry functioned the way the medical industry does, they would all be in jail.
X-rays are higher frequency than visible light and yes, are ionizing. X-rays can and do damage DNA directly, which can lead to cancer.
Microwaves transfer heat to water molecules (and some other molecules, depending on the frequency) very well. Thus they make for great ovens. This "Japanese Death Ray" you speak of would basically cook you to death.
A typical microwave oven is on the order of 500-1500 watts. The typical transmit power of your average cell phone is about 0.5 to 1 watt, less with better cell coverage. That's a factor of 1000 difference. And if that's radiated in all directions from the transmitter, probably less than 1/3 of that energy is radiated toward a user's head. I can't speculate on the absorption rate of that energy within a human head, but I doubt there is a single study which could actually measure the heating effect of a typical cell phone's signal on living tissue.
Do you understand the difference between EM radiation and particle radiation? Unfortunately the difference between the "radiation" fallout from nuclear weapons and disasters and the "radiation" from cell phones is lost on the media. Particle radiation is high-energy particles of matter, e.g. alpha particles, that smash into atoms and molecules and cause damage at the molecular level to your DNA.
EM radiation is pure emitted energy. Light is EM radiation. Heat is EM radiation. Microwaves and radio signals are EM radiation. The wavelength of cell phone radiation is so long (between 10 and 30 cm) that it is literally impossible for it to interact with single molecules and cause damage to your DNA. However, at that wavelength it can still transfer heat, like a microwave oven.
The notion that cell phone radiation causes cancer directly, as in through genetic damage, is ludicrous. It would only be able to cause cancer by causing localized heating of parts of your brain which may set into effect a cascade of effects that may manifest as cancer. However, I think this is unlikely.
As for sperm counts, I think carrying a cell phone in your pocket is about bad for your sperm count as would be carrying around one of those chemical warm packets or wearing tighter underwear--the extra heat is the only culprit.
Given that Pluto orbits at close to 1/1000th of a lightyear from the Sun (up to 7 billion km versus about 10 trillion km in a lightyear), I think if there were a companion star at 1/2 a lightyear, we'd probably have been able to infer its presence by its gravitational disturbance on the outermost planets' orbits. Also, most binary systems have very tight orbits between the companion stars--a binary system with 1/2 a lightyear distance might be even more unusual than a unary star system.
I suppose it is possible the Sun has a companion out there, but seems very unlikely to me.
GC has been around longer than OO.
Hitler is going to be pissed!
PISSED!
I'm unclear on what part of the government would be "supporting" a failing company by allowing a private acquisition to occur. It's not like Oracle is asking the government to pump money into Sun. That would be supporting.
On the other hand, it's seems relatively obvious that by preventing this the EC is doing everything possible to make Sun and Oracle both less competitive. Whose being anti-competitive again? Do you think that maybe IBM, SAP, HP, and others are actually benefitting from the gridlock? They've been soaking up Sun customers for months now.
That's a moronic inference. The balance of our nuclear energy comes from low-enriched uranium specifically made for reactors, not from detonable bombs.
They were just adjusting Mars' orbit for the next shot. Now vee have dem vere vee vant dem!!
No, actually, Russia has about 13,000 warheads.
Right, the pictures of the big bad Israelis bulldozing Palestinian homes make for such great propaganda that the inconvenient fact that the Palestinian authority actually bulldozes _far more_ Palestinian homes than Israel ever has (or that Israel actually bulldozes Israeli citizens homes built on disputed land as well) gets completely overlooked.
Yet when Israel cedes land unilaterally back to the Palestinians, or releases hundreds of terrorist prisoners in exchange for peace, it gets not peace, but demands for its destruction.
You can make rationalizations all day long but when it comes down to it, I am certain that if the Palestinians had 50-100 nuclear devices they would not show the same restraint. Israel would be ash in seconds.
Israel probably has 50-100 nuclear warheads, likely for more than three decades. Yet in the numerous times that it was attacked by its neighbors, had its borders violated by suicide bombers and terrorist kidnappers, and having suffered tens of thousands of rockets launched from the West Bank and Gaza over the years, it has not used one.